Sarah Palin resigns - I say anything that knocks the freak show of dead Michael Jackson, a pathetic media circus that seems designed to demonstrate once and for all that modern society is truly a hollow shell of meretricious ephemera perched on the very edge of collapse - anything that knocks that garish expression of an exhausted culture beneath the fold must be a good thing.
But to treat Palin as a thing of interest in and of itself - well, if her plan is to cash in on her status as a party favorite then it makes complete sense: why endure the headaches and burdens of governing if there are sweeter rewards out there to be had? She's in a unique position - iron is hot, strike - simple as that. So the only real question is: what does it mean if she still has political ambitions?
To answer that I tend to think you have to view it entirely in the context of Obama: he's a celebrity politician, so is she; his power is derived from his celebrity, so is hers; he has the vital political talent of being able to 'connect' with people, so does she; he had, and still has for that matter, a thin resume ergo his success was dependent on a superficial, populist dynamic - same with Sarah. Seen in that light political office, especially in these tough economic times, may have proved more of a hindrance and liability viz her political ambitions: free of public chains she's in a much better position to control her public image - in the same way Obama has helped himself by not staying too long in any office he has served: old preconceptions need to be tossed with these two because their powers are based on the fancy of their public personas not the substantial facts of relevant experience.
And so I tend to believe those seeing flawed strategy in her actions are missing the point: given the normal expectations applied to politicians Obama should never have been elected, in fact he should have been punished for his arrogance - but Obama is not a normal politician. Same with Sarah - the old logic suggests she should be punished for quitting, but I don't see that happening. Of course, as Rove has said, the onus is now on her to make it work, the governorship gave her an out, a bit of cover that she now cannot resort to: her public performances going forward will have to be both compelling and convincing otherwise her ambitions, assuming she still has any, will be toast. But then that would have therefore been the case even if she had stayed in office - and so, on that basis, I think what she's done makes complete sense. The claim that this reinforces a view of her as being a bit 'crazy' only sticks if her performances here on out play to that perception - but again, if that's the case, she never had a chance anyway so what does it matter? As well, how can the democrats attack her as having abandoned her responsibilities when Obama did the same thing, truncating a six year senatorial term after only two years in order to pursue the presidency? And Palin can legitimately argue that she accomplished more in her two years as governor than Obama did in his two years as senator [I know he served four years but essentially two of that was spent chasing after the nomination].
If you see Palin as a republican version of Obama, appealing to a different demographic with a different style and different optics but playing off the same populist dynamics, then you cannot judge her resignation using old parameters that probably don't matter anymore - certainly at least don't matter as far as these two are concerned. Personally, I hope she's got what it takes, not because I'm a supporter, but because I think it would make for a truly fascinating 2012 campaign - although possibly fascinating in a rather morbid sort of way since I lean towards seeing both as appealing facades hiding serious structural flaws.
